Big Will- Without the war what does Bush have to campaign on-all that he can effectively communicate is Kerry-bashing. What should the public do that doesn't agree with his (and your apparent) stance on the war? At this point in the war what is Kerry suppose to say he'll do? He can't pull the troops out the day after he takes office.

Our troops are dying in Iraq in a war started under false pretense. This is not a war of the American people this is Bush's War pure and simple. This administration turned our troops from liberators to occupiers because of their miscalculating blunders in this conflict. God help us if the heart of the American people is with Bush/Cheney.

I would have to agree with 2x6 that the war against the terrorists is the dominant issue, and rightly so. Bush supporters would also cite NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit as key pieces of legislation (though I'm not crazy about those programs ) that do not involve the war. IMO, what particularly qualifies Bush ahead of Kerry is, a) he has been President for 4 years already, b) he's done a great job in difficult times, and c) you know where he stands on the issues. (perfect example of Kerry double speak was his answer to the question on immigration last night - something in there for everyone to like!).

They've labeled Bush as a divider and not a uniter, but it seems to me that the dividing has been done by Bush-detractors, mainly the media, Hollywood types and key Democrats. Post 9-11 and post-Afghanistan his job approval ratings were sky high. What happened? What did Bush do to turn so much hatred upon himself?

You say "Iraq", lies about WMD, rush to war, blah, blah, blah. We've been talking about that stuff for 100 pages. Not fooling me. IMO, we have an honest man as President who is doing his very best for the country, who has not lied to the American people, and who has NOT made a mistake in toppling Saddam's regime and attempting to change the political climate of the Middle East. Why would I want to change leaders now? What message does that send to our enemies, "We are weak and conflicted. Do your worst and we'll bluster for a while but eventually turn on ourselves and quit."?

I asked you guys a while back to tell me something good about Kerry post-Vietnam, but nobody had anything to say. I ain't trying to be a smart-ass, but this guy could be President and I would like to have SOME reason to like him.

IMO, we have an honest man as President ... who has not lied to the American people...

You mean the President isn't a politician???

Honest men gain stature in society by hard work, not through favors. Honest men admit mistakes (e.g. "Yes, the data we based our decision to go to war on was incorrect." or "Yes, we overestimated our welcome in Iraq." or "Yes, we underestimated the number of troops we needed.") Honesty is the foundation of trust. Lack of trust is why half the country wants to give someone else a try as President.

_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

PM - I need to know about the reference you are making about discarding registrations. If you are talking about the purging of Florida voters because of efforts to stop convicted felons from voting, you need to check your facts. What Moore didn't tell you is that the voting official were aware of the problems this purge list created, so they ignored it completely and allowed them to vote. Also, what he doesn't tell you is that them doing so actually allowed convicted felons to vote when they were not supposed to be able to vote. Who do you think they voted for that year?.....It's all distortion. If anything, that whole scandal probably helped Gore, not hurt him.

I am surprised that no one piped in on this issue of the Democrats misleading the voters purposely. I'm sure this has happened before, but these guys just got caught with their pants down.

Jorge - I think that your comments about Drudge are completely unfounded. Have you ever actually gone to his site? Everything there is comprised of links to valid sources. If the sources are not available yet, he will say "Developing" and then follow w/ a link once he has it. These are not his opinions he is posting. Also, you may want to bash him, but it's a bit arrogant considering how many stories are broken via his site. If memory serves, he was the first one to break the Clinton scandal. You may not like the fact that he is not your usual liberal-slanted source, but it's pretty much ignorant to compare him to the Enquirer.

Spiff - As far as the first story goes, I really don't make it a habit to get news via BLOGs, so I'm not going to comment on that. The second story really doesn't cause me any heartburn. These guys are terrorists that do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention. So, if the CIA wants to put the screws to them to obtain the information necessary to protect our soldiers, our country, and even the world, I say have at 'em. As a society, we have gotten so weak when it comes to "the spy game". In this environment, we need now more than ever to have the CIA operatives out there doing all those things that would turn our stomachs. If we hadn't handcuffed them and slashed their funding as much as we did in the past, we would have a hell of a lot better intelligence about the Middle East. You may not like what they do, but they are the ones best suited to uncover true intelligence in the type of world we are living in right now.

PM - Lack of trust has nothing to do w/ it. The Left has hated Bush from day one. The war is just the club they are using to beat him over the head. Remember, I used to be one of you guys and I remember that blind disgust for the "evil republicans" and the "rich". I remember latching onto whatever came my way as a reason to continue that hatred. Then, I saw the light. But, nothing has changed. This movement is the same old thing, but with a target that is just a bit more "hateable" than the average demon from the right.

How Much U.S. Help?
The Bush Administration takes heat for a CIA plan to influence Iraq's elections
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER; DOUGLAS WALLER

Oct. 4, 2004
President Bush and interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi insisted last week that Iraq would go ahead with elections scheduled for January, despite continuing violence. But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections. But lawmakers from both parties raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections." Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue.
Rice spokesman Sean McCormack says, "I cannot in any way comment on classified matters, the existence or nonexistence of findings." But, McCormack says, "there have been and continue to be concerns about efforts by outsiders to influence the outcome of the Iraqi elections, including money flowing from Iran. This raises concerns about whether there will be a level playing field for the election. This situation has posed difficult dilemmas about what action, if any, the U.S. should take in response. In the final analysis, we have adopted a policy that we will not try to influence the outcome of the upcoming Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." A senior U.S. official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans. "This was a tough call. We went back and forth on it in the U.S. government. We consulted the Hill on this question ... Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world.

The fact that they wanted to rig the elections is sick. I'm glad they've decided to "scale back" their plans, but it's just disgusting that they were going to do it at all. And don't say "well Iran was doing it"...that kind of rationale became old somewhere around the third grade.

"The fact that they wanted to rig the elections is sick. I'm glad they've decided to "scale back" their plans, but it's just disgusting that they were going to do it at all."

Now... are you talking about the CIA or ABC? That Time article reminds me a lot of the internal memo from the ABC news dep't to favor Kerry in their coverage. Now that is sick. Of course, CNN, CBS, and MSNBC have all been just as biased in their attempts to affect the election, so maybe that is just democracy in action.

Bush is an honest man.

I'm still waiting for some insight on Kerry's character, legislative achievements, whatever, anything other than, "He spoke well at the debates." Why should I like this guy who disavows his voting record, claims to not be a "liberal", but has the backing of every "liberal" in the country?

Republicans have done a terrific job of turning the word "liberal" into a four-letter-word. For as long as I can remember they've used the word "liberal" as a negative word. It's gotten to the point where Dems run from the word in fear. Stupid. They need to embrace the word. Embrace it, and the republicans can't use it against you any more. Duh. I believe the main reason that the dem party is so weak is that they run away from the label "liberal". You don't see republicans running for the hills when they're called conservative do you?

"You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, andI am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father," Cheney told supporters at a rally in Fort Myers, Florida, without specifically talking about Kerry's remarks.

During his debate with President George W. Bush in Tempe, Arizona, Kerry was asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.

"We're all God's children," Kerry responded. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, reacted angrily soon after the debate. "I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

Kerry issued a statement Thursday saying his remarks were meantto be positive. "I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue," he said.

Edwards's wife, Elizabeth Edwards, suggested in an interview with ABC Radio Thursday that Mrs. Cheney had overreacted to Kerry's remarks. "I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences," she said.